On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:48, Fisher, Robert (FXNZ CHC) wrote: > Well done Nick. (That was just what I was going to say) > > Rob
Well done Nick, that was just what I was _trying_ to say, hehe! Especially the first paragraph. Heartily agree with all of it :-) Cheers, Gareth > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Rout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, 8 February 2004 11:15 p.m. > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: CLUG meetings: A future or not > > I have been giving all this a bit of thought. There is nothing to stop > any group of like minded people forming a Trust, or an Incorporated > Society. It may or may not be called the Canterbury/Christchurch Linux > Users Group Incorporated, but one would hope a new idea had a new name, > so as to avoid confucion with the froup of people who subscribe to this > list, a subset of whom occasionally meet for various technical and > social purposes. > > There must be a point to it, otherwise it will fall over as quick as > look at you. > > The points I can take from the few people who have posted is: > > Technical meetings, be they installfests, "fixits", talks etc are liked > by many people, some people learn better face to face or in a lecture > scenario. Some people, especially newbies who are so new they don't know > their root from their / don't know where to start describing their > problem, some people just like the mixed social/technical aspect of > getting in the same room with a bunch of geeks and their hardware. > > Which brings us to the second general consensus (as I see it), namely > that the social aspects are welcomed. OK some cannot afford dinner, some > cannot get into a pub, but there can be events for everyone on the > "social calendar" > > Neither of those aims require any further structure. They are well > catered for already. > > The third thing I see being called for is involvement in promoting linux > in a wider context, eg Trevor's post (and he wasn't the only one). Some > have pointed out that there is a bit of community money out there that > could be applied for etc. There have been suggestions of an "expo" type > of show, ie show off to the public what linux can do - no installs, just > a bunch of demos and maybe talks. Theres also room for more > targetted promotions - eg school teachers - produce a reference LTSP > site and give guided tours to school principals/BOT's. This type of > thing takes money to do properly. An expo would almost require a > fulltime worker for a period of time. It requires promotion, > advertising, budgets etc. It would basically, IMHO, require a more > formal structure to give some accountability etc. personally I would > have to limit my involvement in something like that as I have a > completely unrelated business to run, but i'd still like to have some > involvement. > > This talk of money and promotion to actual buyers (as opposed to > fiddlers with their own boxes to run) begs the question of where are the > commercial linux people in all of this? We all know that there are > several businesses in ChCh producing Open Source software. You don't see > a lot of them on this list any more, perhaps they are lurking. But if > there are schools and businesses to sell hardware, software and services > to, the commercial guys should be there putting money in and promoting > their services. Another way of looking at it is, picture an expo with a > great LTSP demo. Teachers are impressed. "Where can we get one?" - there > is no point in saying www.ltsp.org. You need to be able to refer to > people on the ground. > > Anyway its late. My point is that most of the desires expressed are > catered for at present, but that heavy duty promotion requires a lot of > time money and effort. Thats not to say it shouldn't be done, we just > need to think carefully about it before this group, or some offshoot or > subset of it, goes down that line in a big way. > > I hope I get some reactions, and the discussion continues. > > > > > On Sun, 08 > Feb 2004 22:16:41+1300 Gareth Williams<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > My $0.02 - > > > > As things currently stand we have a committee who primarily look after > > the small amount of money "CLUG"* has aquired, and the avenues through > > which that money is spent / aquired (read: meetings, workshops, > > installfests). This a valuable role (espeically as far as money is > > concerned, heh). And helpers need rounding up for installfests, > > speakers need rounding up for meetings, etc etc. > > > > But the group is really the mailing list. This is where people come > > for help, this is where decisions are usually made, this is where most > > discussions happen. Any off list activities are really just a > > semi-organised gathering of like minded people, who organised > > something and invited people via a common mailing list. With the > > exception of the funds (which the committee looks after), that's all > > there is really. And that's all we need. > > > > Why do we need a formal group (aka committee) organising things like > > official dinners / dinner meetings? If people on the list want to meet > > others and eat food, they don't need any kind of structure to do so. > > Someone (let's say Nick, for example ;-) decides they want to organise > > a small get together at a local restraunt, and posts an open > > invitation to all list members. Those who wish to join the fun do so, > > those who can't make it (like me, regrettably), or who can't afford it > > (me also, heh ;-) don't. > > > > Now, somebody tell me what is wrong with that system. > > > > It works. - worked (and from the sounds of it everyone had a good time > > > > :-) > > > > I would like to see the committee stick to their current role of > > organising meetings and installfests. Input from people on list as to > > the content of these (do we need more speakers? more workshops? etc) > > is of course a good thing. But anything additional that can be left on > > an ad-hoc basis (such as dinners) should be IMHO. > > > > Basically - if you want an activity, organise it yourself, and post an > > invitation to others on the mailing list.** > > > > I don't think we need an AGM, unless any of those on the committee > > feel they wish to step down, in which case we will need to elect > > replacements (but even that can be done on-list). Things are running > > pretty well by themselves. > > > > In any case, I move a pre-emptive motion that nobody move any motions, > > counter-motions, motions to append motions, or any other such > > silliness, should an AGM be held this year :-) :-) > > > > > > Sorry for the long post. > > > > Cheers, > > Gareth > > > > * there is no CLUG ;-) > > > > ** this goes for forming random community trusts and the like too ;-)
